list_design_releases

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ordering, pagination, what 'signed' implies, or what a release record contains. The 'Requires Kiln Pro' line hints at an entitlement gate but is marketing copy rather than disclosed behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is an unrelated upgrade/pricing pitch with a tracking URL. That is dead weight for an agent trying to decide whether and how to call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description omits return shape, ordering, and entitlement behavior, while spending its length on promotional content. It is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: include_retired has only a terse 'Default: false.' note and design_id is undocumented. The description adds no meaning for either parameter — it never explains what a retired release is or what form design_id takes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List signed releases for a design'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from generic list tools. However, it makes no attempt to differentiate from close siblings such as list_feature_releases, list_decoration_preset_releases, or list_design_versions, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other release/version listing siblings, nor any prerequisite context for design_id. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is a paywall notice rather than invocation guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.